ReviewStem cells and development2010
Alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells: ethical and scientific issues revisited.
Review in Stem cells and development, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stem cell therapy use in patients with dementia: a systematic review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Cadaveric Stem Cells: Their Research Potential and Limitations.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Oocytes, embryos and pluripotent stem cells from a biomedical perspective.Animal reproduction · 2019Article
- Current Perspectives regarding Stem Cell-Based Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease.Stem cells international · 2018Review
- Progress in stem cell therapy for major human neurological disorders.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2013Review
- Specimen collection for induced pluripotent stem cell research: harmonizing the approach to informed consent.Stem cells translational medicine · 2012Article
- Role of heat shock proteins in stem cell behavior.Progress in molecular biology and translational science · 2012Review
- Keeping things simple.Nature methods · 2011Article
- Human-animal chimeras for vaccine development: an endangered species or opportunity for the developing world?BMC international health and human rights · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stem cell researchers in the United States continue to face an uncertain future, because of the changing federal guidelines governing this research, the restrictive patent situation surrounding the generation of new human embryonic stem cell lines, and the ethical divide over the use of embryos for research. In this commentary, we describe how recent advances in the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells and the isolation of germ-line-derived pluripotent stem cells resolve a number of these uncertainties. The availability of patient-matched, pluripotent stem cells that can be obtained by ethically acceptable means provides important advantages for stem cell researchers, by both avoiding protracted ethical debates and giving U.S. researchers full access to federal funding. Thus, ethically uncompromised stem cells, such as those derived by direct reprogramming or from germ-cell precursors, are likely to yield important advances in stem cell research and move the field rapidly toward clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.